Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Men with type 1 diabetes may be able to grow their own insulin-producing cells from their testicular tissue, say Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) researchers who presented their findings today at the American Society of Cell Biology 50th annual meeting in Philadelphia. Their laboratory and animal study is a proof of principle that human spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) extracted from testicular tissue can morph into insulin-secreting beta islet cells normally found in the pancreas. And the researchers say they accomplished this feat without use of any of the extra genes now employed in most labs to turn adult stem cells into a tissue of choice."

Since one of the thoughts(at least what they told me was the cause 15 years ago) for the Type 1 Diabetes it is an autoimmune disease, how long is it until the immune system will just attack the new insulin producing cells?

Yes, Type I is an auto-immune disease. Like many such diseases, it can lie dormant for a long time until something triggers the immune system into activity - such as, for example, puberty. So, who knows, unless you're going through a second childhood - do you have urges to get a sports car and dump your significant other for some arm candy?

From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

As sombody with Type 1, this is indeed the problem with most 'fixes' for the problem. You have to stop the transplanted cells from being destroyed again.
There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them.
I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on.
Chris

It's a very clever solution that solves the rejection issue. The main questions are on how much insulin can be produced and over what time period. The reality is that anything that introduces at least some reasonable level of insulin production - even if not enough to eliminate injections - should reduce the extreme blood sugar highs that cause the most long t

I find it hard to comprehend why you think it is so bad for these pigs to be used in this manner.

Given the choice between the life of a pig and the life of say one of your children which would you choose?

I've no problem with you choosing to minimise your own effect on animals, and there are alternatives to animal products in a lot of cases but you need to be realistic. Before I became diabetic I used to give blood regularly up to 3 pints a year usually. That blood was used to help save lives and I really di

I find it unacceptable to "use", lets be clear, to *kill* others like this, just as I would find it unacceptable to kill another human being in this manner. I am all for organ donation, after I am dead for example, I am not for being killed for my organs:-)

The issue is actually rather black and white, just as we cannot be a "little bit pregnant", especially as a guy, we either kill others for our uses, or we do not. Throughout time, our societies change, for e

I've got chickens too,one of them a Bantam is in a bit of a bad way being the smallest she has been bullied by some of the other bigger birds. I've moved her out so she has a chance to rest and recuperate it is unfortunate but that is the way with chickens they can be pretty horrible to their compatriots.

There is very much a quality of life for all animals, including humans and you must admit there are animals living in better conditions than humans.

I'd first like to state again that *we* are also animals, isnt it interesting how upset some people get over this simple, evolutionary fact? A recent debate I heard mentioned this, of how we like to see ourselves as Gods above all other live forms here, and possibly any others we discover elsewhere, no doubt if we do colonise other planets, find other animals smaller than us, we'll "farm" and kill them too! Oh, but if we find "more Godlike"

Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals eat other animals and will even eat animals of their own species.

"Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom."

I see other animals as loving their lives as much as I do mine, as having the same basic right *not* to be regarded as a "thing", as our "property". I am not making the distinction here that some Animals are "more equal" than others.

I see the mention of what other Nonhumans do to each other again. We wouldnt use other species as our "moral guide" for

Is it right to kill another human to save someone you love (in terms of another presenting no threat, ie, not someone with a gun shooting at you and your loved one)? Is it right to kill one person to save two?

I knew this was going to be a 'common' retort, but you're calling it absurd. If you get to call KILLING PLANTS absurd, then I get to call LETTING PEOPLE DIE (when animal products could save them) absurd.

They are currently doing islet cell transplants (from organ donors) which actually have a pretty good success rate, the longest being 11 years ago (to current) without rejection. Although you are correct, stopping the process from happening again is one of the main problems they are trying to solve.

I doubt if it would actually require multiple injections on a daily basis that is if it needed repeating regularly.

A controlled insulin release would lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness, amputations, nerve damage erectile dysfunction and randomly dying in your sleep. plus minor advantages such as better energy levels and a less reactive digestive system. Plus the cost of maintaining healthy insulin levels would probably be cheaper since your body is now producing the needed insulin and plus t

Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.

Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly [wikipedia.org]. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.

The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.

I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.

The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.

Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.

While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.

Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.

I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.

It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.

Ouch! Speak for yourself:-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.

I inject twice a day into the sides of my stomach usually if i struggle to find a good spot on one side then the other side is usually pain free.

I'm a type II and it sucks but I really wouldn't want to be a type I, people seem to think its pretty easy living with diabetes and also don't see how it effects our quality and length of life. Which would make it easier to choose a needle in the nuts in order to live a normal life. Would prefer not to have to do that but if it made diabetes go away even for a few

The belly is my favorite place too. There's just no "pinch an inch" anywhere else.

Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.

Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry,

What works as a basal dose in one situation can be a massive overdose in another. Situations change, not just from day to day, but hour to hour.

What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.

It's not as neat and tidy as the ads from the pump manufacturers would have you believe, if your activ

I've been doing this for almost 3 decades, and it's one of the reasons I don't bother with the basal injection - I learned that the problems outweigh the benefits, and frankly, I don't need them, My weight is right on target, I get LOTS of exercise morning and evening, and taking rapid-acting insulin at meals works. So what if my blood sugar ranges a bit lower and a bit higher than the ideal - as long as it's "good enough", what's the problem? That it's not always fixed at one number? So what?

The problem with the pump is that if, like me, your energy output varies a lot during the day, it's not only useless, but a hazard. It's suitable for people with a more or less sedentary lifestyle (cue everyone going "but that's not me!").

I'm outdoors walking for almost 2 hours every morning and again every evening, wind, rain, or snow. You do 15k a day in -20 weather, you'd be amazed at how many calories that consumes:-)

Interesting idea, but then wouldn't this show up in pre diabetics an over production of insulin would be detectable before the beta cells began to fail? If too much insulin was produced then wouldn't there be abnormally low blood sugar counts?

However I think i'm right in thinking that when someone is diagnosed as type 2 they are not producing enough insulin to maintain healthy levels.

Unfortunately, type I diabetes =/= celiac, as in, you can't just declare "it can be triggered by something simple" without actually knowing what that something is, which is the tricky part. Of course, the second problem hits -- what's if it's not something simple that involves a diet change but rather something like rhinovirus or any of several dozen random bugs that your immune system normally fights off just fine but happens to look *just* enough like a beta cell to a diseased immune system...

Yes, the root problem is autoimmune, but we already have a way to correct this, google "Edmunton Protocol" - the participants were effectively cured. The problem was a lack of islet cells (insulin producing cells) to do much good - it takes like 5 donor cadavers to cure 1 diabetic, so there's insufficient supply to handle even 1/100 of the diabetic patients.

But something like this just might provide cures for millions of sufferers, without fear of tissue rejection! As father of a type 1 diabetic son, this is a big, big, BIG deal!

From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

Yes, it is due to an autoimmune process. However, there are certain parts of the body that are immunologically protected, such as the brain and testes. If the islet cells were to stay in these immunologically protected areas they may continue doing what they're doing unhindered.

From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

even more so considering medical science is on the verge of a cure [families.com]

This is exactly why I masturbate every night and swallow my own cum. My family has a history of diabetes and I am doing everything to prevent it from happening to me. Most of my thoughts will be on the porn but a small amount will be thinking about this article when I masturbate tonight.

Too bad slashdot hasn't fixed the bug that lets you see the anonymous posters identity when you view the source...

They're different. Type 1 is a failure to produce insulin and, while a PITA, is essentially easy to deal with via insulin injections. Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better. Mixing them up is dangerous, and medication for Type 1 or 2 can cause severe problems (e.g. death) if used by the other.

That being said, once something is standardized, scientists tend not to rename things the way they should be. The best example is, of course, the flow of current, but issues with IUPAC nomenclature and the

Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).

Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".

Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:

The smell of acetone or peaches on the breath, as mentioned above

Excess urination (as the body tries to flush out the excess sugar through the urine)

Excess thirst (as the body tries to replace the water lost)

Lack of energy

Want to go to sleep after eating, as the blood sugar levels go through the roof

Munchies for high-calorie items (the body isn't getting it's energy via the normal metabolism of carbohydrates, so it uses an alternate, less efficient route, resulting in lots of ketones, and the acetone smell on the breath)

The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts [diabetesmonitor.com].

The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.

Most of what you wrote is true, but a few corrections:1) The symptoms you wrote are more common in type 1 Diabetes (i.e. the autoimmune disease, usually appearing in children). Adults usually get type 2 Diabetes (where the body develops insulin resistance). Patients with type 2 may have the disease for many years (average is 10y) before they are diagnosed, whilst in type 1 the disease appears rapidly and you get very high glucose levels which cause the symptoms you wrote.2) Although we (the doctors) preach

The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers

I talked to a neurologist about this. He told me that even though much of the effects of type II can be controlled by diet and exercise once Diabetes has begun there is neurological and vascular damage that will continue to occur no matter how much you improve your diet and exercise.

People who change their lifestyle after finding out they have diabetes have every reason to do better than their peers who continue to live a sedentary, fat-of-the-land, puffing-like-a-chimney lifestyle.

So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.

Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.

The comment I was responding to made it sound like the effects of Type II Diabetes could be reduced to 0. They can't. No matter what you do, all other things being equal, your lifespan and quality of life will be reduced compared to someone who does not have Diabetes.

Umm... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was that someone with diabetes could well end up in better health because they not only are more inclined to see a doctor on a regular basis, but also because diabetes might be the push they need to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.

Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.

Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itsel

A lot of the depression is caused by the brain no longer being on a permanent sugar high. The only way to combat that is to get the endorphins going - in other words, contact with other people and exercise. Get a dog and walk it. Get out. Do stuff. Don't have your own personal pity party - or if you must, make it 10 minutes. Depression is nasty, in part because we don't talk about it, and we don't teach people how to deal with it.

Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.

It was 35 years ago this year that the whole family went to the local childre

Lots of "somebodies" have thought of this, but we have thousands of years of inertia to overcome. Diabetes was realized and diagnosed in ancient times, long before we ever discovered the difference between type 1 and type 2. As a father of type 1 son, I would like nothing better for type 1 to be renamed something without the word "diabetes" in it, but I know it's hopeless. The term diabetes today means "type 2" to the vast majority of people.

Yes it is , type 1 only.For you I'd recommend picking up body-building , it would solve your problem.Check out the diets and exercises on http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/ , they're meant to promote insulin sensitivity , exactly what you are missing.I am not a doctor but still , I'm confident it would help you.

Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values. In addition to responding to insulin, you'll get better results when exercising and you'll generally feel better.

Great advance; however, the problem isthat it still requires the recipient to be immune deficient i.e. the testes with beta cell islet cell characteristics were transplanted into the back of immune deficient mice

Okay, so I read TFA. As a diabetic, I had to. Hope I don't get kicked off slashdot.

Some key points: They took spermatogonial stem cells (SSC's) from testicular tissue of deceased organ donors (not from diabetic patients) and observed that some of these cells would turn into insulin producing beta cells in a test tube. They injected these cells into mice, and found that the mice had reduced glucose levels for a week.

This is pretty exciting news, since the alternative source of beta cells is to extract them from the pancreas of deceased organ donors. (This was done in the Edmonton Protocol [slashdot.org].)

Yes, however it still suffers from the same issue as most of the other 'gene' or 'cell' therapies for diabetes: You are using someone or something elses insulin producing cells to make insulin.

That means that your immune system isn't going to like it much. What one needs is a system that takes your very own testicular cells and creates beta (insulin secreting) cells. I'm sure that's what they're trying to get at but I detect a potential problem with the practical application of the technology.

And this brings in the whole issue if causing yet another round of sensitizing the immune system to a foreign agent that looks like insulin.

Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.

Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.

No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.

Type 1 diabetics still need to take insulin, but can take less and have less complications. So, this idea from the article might eventually help them.

From that link: "John... was a 22 year old college graduate with Type 1 diabetes since the age of 6. He was five foot, eight inches tall and weighed 190 pounds. He was taking a total of 70 units of insulin daily. He was referred to

Most likely the progenitor cells that are in the main body of the testis. It is likely that a simple biopsy would be sufficient to harvest these progenitor cells.

In male vertibrates the testes are comprised of vascular tissues that feed a labyrinth of micro-tubule structures, which then connect to the upper portion of the epididymis. Inside these tubules there are colonies of spermatogenic progenitor cells, which divide once via mitosis, then divide a second time into early, non-motile sperm cells via meio